In the case of Zenas Fulton and others v. Morgan M'Affee, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made without consideration. The plaintiffs argued that they had provided goods and services in exchange for payment from M’Affee, but he refused to pay them after receiving their products or services. The defendant countered by arguing that there was no consideration given on his part since he did not promise anything in return for what he received from the plaintiffs. After considering both sides of the argument, the court ruled in favor of M’Affee because there was no evidence presented showing any kind of agreement between him and the plaintiffs regarding compensation for what they provided him with. This ruling established an important precedent which still stands today: contracts must include some form of consideration before being enforceable under law.

In the case of Zenas Fulton and Others v. Morgan M'Affee, the dissenting opinion argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced as written. The majority opinion held that an agreement to pay for goods in installments was void because it violated a state statute prohibiting contracts with more than one year's duration. However, the dissent argued that since there was no evidence of fraud or duress when entering into this contract, it should still be enforceable despite violating the law. Furthermore, they contended that if such agreements were not allowed then creditors would suffer from being unable to collect debts owed by debtors who could not afford to make lump sum payments at once. As such, they concluded that enforcing contracts according to their terms is essential for protecting both parties involved and upholding justice in society as a whole.